FYI...

When I started working thr= ough the 2.x issues the results on 2.3 were...

1801 files, 1802= 0 examples, 153894 expectations, 36 failures, 19 errors

<= /div>

Now the results are...

1801 files, 18024= examples, 153918 expectations, 16 failures, 12 errors

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:16:57 AM Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@g= mail.com> wrote:

= Beniot,

I have been working on reconciling RubySpec with the 2.x MRI= versions over the last month. =C2=A0https://github.com/anthonycrumley/rubyspec/commits/master

My in= tention is to:
1) Get RubySpec updated to run with all the 2.x ve= rsions of MRI.
2) Get the nurse/rubyspec updates since the fork a= dded.
3) Get the updated RubySpecs into the MRI CI.
4) = Hopefully find that repo a home at either rubyspec/rubyspec or ruby/rubyspe= c.

I agree with you that the RubySpec tests are ve= ry valuable and would LOVE to work with you on them.

Anthony

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 6:59:48 AM Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 February 2015 at 13:32, Benoit Daloze <eregon= tp@gmail.com> wrote:
- The second step is really to choose a canonical= RubySpec repository, to avoid "death by too much forks".
This repository should only contain RubySpec tests for practical reasons.=
We should allow many specs contributors to take part in merg= ing changes and maintaining specs.
I think this was a fatal flaw of ruby= spec/rubyspec in that too few people had the large burden of merging and ma= intaining the specs.

The main existing repository I= see today is nurse/rubyspec.
I am thinking the process could be similar= to handling pull requests on ruby/ruby in that some contributors would pro= vide feedback and merge them.
The CI is very useful in this regard to en= sure MRI is not broken inadvertently.

=
I think it would make sense in that case to move n= urse/rubyspec to ruby/rubyspec for clarity.